computation-friendly kernels

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 00:02, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:

> I'm not convinced that removing rmap from the FC1 kernel was the right
> decision. I suppose I'll have to do some patching and testing. :-/

the 'stay close to mainline' mantra of fc2 was originally going to be
the way to go for fc1 too, but things didnt work out that way.

The RHL9 kernel has a mismash of rmap patches + various bits that
folks did some of which went into later upstream rmap patches, some
didn't.  For a recent RHL7/8/9 update, I looked into updating the rmap
patch to something more recent from upstream. It was too painful for
words, and would've required a) lots of time to get right and
b) proper understanding of the issues in vm land.

The black art of vm hacking is something I try to avoid where possible,
so creating another forked vm for FC1 was something I really wanted
to avoid.  That said, the large number of VM updates in mainline 2.4
since 2.4.22 means that effectively FC1 has a forked VM right now.

I'm going to look into merging the vm changes for a future fc1 update.
Right now there still seem to be some niggles that need to be worked
out, but it's certainly no worse than whats in FC1 by all accounts.

I can't win..

	Dave